Evolution Corrupts the Gospel

[The Galatian]

The Bible has EVERYTHING to say about God CREATING MORE THAN a single celled organism from which ALL life "sprang".

You've confused abiogenesis (which God tells us was the way He did it) with evolution.

The Bible declares DIRECT divine fiat creation in SIX days "FOR in SIX DAYS God created the Heavens and the Earth and the SEA and ALL THAT IS IN THEM".

"YOM" is not necessarily translated to "day" and is often used for various periods of time. And as early Christians pointed out, there can be no days, or mornings or evenings without a Sun to have them. Some try to force a 24 hour day in to this text, but they are trying to replace God's word with their own ideas.

Turning a blind eye to scripture our compromising evolutionist bretheren hope to find a Gospel that will not be corrupted by the doctrines of evolutionism.

If you want your doctrine accepted by other Christians, you'll need to do more than insist you are right.

Perhaps those early Christians had it right. Not everything new is good.

 

[RichardC]

Originally posted by Helen:
You have a good point there, Bob. What starts as an 'isolated' criticism/rejection of something in Genesis ends up working its way through the Bible, creating doubt and dependence on man's intelligence instead of God's Word at every turn.

You write of (1) depending on man's intelligence and (2) depending on God's Word, as if they were alternatives. But you can't determine what God's Word is without using your finite, fallible human intelligence. You are using your fallible human intelligence to understand the Bible and determine what it means for us, just as I am. You're taking the outcome of your (inherently fallible) thinking and declaring it to be God's Word.

 

[RichardC]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

In FACT they "demonstrate" just the opposite by SHOWING that not ONLY do they need to "trash" the Word of God in Gen 1-3 but as Richard points out - it cascades into a entire seriest of "Bible trashing exercises" and its starting mandate is "What will APPEAL to the humanist non-Christian mind".

No, the mandate is to interpret the Bible in the way that makes the most sense. Just as you strive to understand the Bible in the way that makes the most sense to you.

 

[Helen]

Richard, C.S. Lewis had an interesting comment about all that -- I'm not sure which essay it was in, but I can skim through the ones I have here (it's in one of them) if you really need me to.

His comment was that there should be things in the Bible with which we are uncomfortable or which don't make sense to us. If there weren't, then the Bible would be no different from any other book in the world. So when we are reading the Bible, and we come across that which we do not understand or which does not make sense to us or leaves us uncomfortable, then that is precisely what we should be paying most attention to, for that is where we are furthest from understanding something God has to say to us.

I have found, instead, that a great number of people approach certain sayings or events in the Bible rejecting or reinterpreting them precisely because they do not understand them or feel uncomfortable with them.

Either God's Word is God's Word, or it isn't. If it is God's Word to us, then we had better quit trying to cram it into our finite understandings and instead pray for wisdom and insight from Him. His ways truly are not our ways, and if we want to understand more about His ways, then we had also better stop trying to shoehorn them into our ways!

 

[BobRyan]

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible has EVERYTHING to say about God CREATING MORE THAN a single celled organism from which ALL life "sprang".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Galation
You've confused abiogenesis (which God tells us was the way He did it) with evolution.

In fact evilutionists INVENTED the term - and applied it to one of their mythologies about single celled organism sprining up from nothing (alchemy) without God.

Whereas the Bible says COMPLEX living systems sprang out of non-living material by the WORD of God - in a single day.

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible declares DIRECT divine fiat creation in SIX days "FOR in SIX DAYS God created the Heavens and the Earth and the SEA and ALL THAT IS IN THEM".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Galation -
"YOM" is not necessarily translated to "day" and is often used for various periods of time.

You're simply not paying attention. The quote above is from Exodus 20:8-11 where YOM for 6 DAYS "YOU shall labor and do all your work" Is set in exact equivalence with "FOR in SIX days the LORD CREATED the heavens and the earth" - same author, same context, same word, iron clad exegesis. EVEN evolutionist-believing Orthodox Jewish Hebrew scholars ADMIT that the context for YOM in Exodus 20:8-11 is iron clad, fixed and obvious.

Galation
And as early Christians pointed out, there can be no days, or mornings or evenings without a Sun to have them. Some try to force a 24 hour day in to this text, but they are trying to replace God's word with their own ideas.

Wrong as usual Galation. (surprise, surprise - eh?)

The Genesis 1 "account" states that a light source is the FIRST act of DAY ONE. And in fact it appears that it is a single side light source with a rotating planet IF we are to ADD our "great knowledge" of how the system works. (As you seem to want to do).

But once that is set in motion - nothing prevents DAY 2 from having evening and morning - or even DAY 3. That which was CREATED on Day one - is sufficient.


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turning a blind eye to scripture our compromising evolutionist bretheren hope to find a Gospel that will not be corrupted by the doctrines of evolutionism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Galation
If you want your doctrine accepted by other Christians, you'll need to do more than insist you are right.

If you want your speculation that you actually CAN compromise the Gospel WITH evilutionism and STILL have the Bible Gospel - you will have to do more than simply duck whenever that assumption is challenged. You will have to "do the math" you will have to "show your work". You will have to form a compelling argument.

Simply dodging the point - post after post - is not going to "make your case".

Rather you show with every post - that my opening post on this thread - has gone unchallenged by a serious, detailed, compelling response of any kind. Mere speculation and assumption do not your solid case - make.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[RichardC]

Originally posted by Helen:
I have found, instead, that a great number of people approach certain sayings or events in the Bible rejecting or reinterpreting them precisely because they do not understand them or feel uncomfortable with them.

Either God's Word is God's Word, or it isn't. If it is God's Word to us, then we had better quit trying to cram it into our finite understandings and instead pray for wisdom and insight from Him. His ways truly are not our ways, and if we want to understand more about His ways, then we had also better stop trying to shoehorn them into our ways!

I also recall something about this in C.S. Lewis, but don't remember the context. Anyway, my point is that if the Bible is God's Word, then it's important to understand what it means. And there's no getting around the fact that we have to use our finite intelligence to understand it. We can certainly pray for wisdom -- but then we have to use whatever wisdom we have got to understand the Bible. We don't have a direct hotline from God to tell us how to understand the Bible. Even if we believe that God has spoken to us directly, that is our fallible human brain telling us so.

Richard

 

[Peter101]

BobRyan writes:

"It should be noted that when Gentry responds to this he points out the ratios for Po210 to Po218 in the "primordial case" are not at the 67,000 to one ratio "expected" and "observed" with well established coalfied wood examples of the Uranium to lead sequence. In fact you have MORE Po218 than Po210 in the primordial case. And these are shown to be in monolithic contiguous structures without breaks/cracks etc."

Gentry blunders when he claims that the expected ratio of Po-210 to Po-218 halos is 67,000 to 1.
The reason is that both poloniums are from the uranium-238 decay chain, and that chain produces only one Po-210 and one Po-218 atom for each uranium-238 that decays into its daughter elements. If all the uranium atoms in a clump of uranium decay away to their ultimate end products, the expectation is that the number of halos due to Po-218 and Po-210 would be equal and not in ratio of 1 to 67,000 as Gentry claims.

[ May 06, 2003, 01:30 AM: Message edited by: Peter101 ]

 

[Peter101]

Helen writes: "The halos of the various radioactive elements have distinctive characteristics. You find rings at set radii from the central inclusion; and the pattern of rings is what tells us what element was originally there. Gentry considered the polonium halos he studied to be primordial because there was no precursor or parent element rings to be seen. Gentry's point was that, without evidence of a precursor, and since that type of polonium requires a precursor element, these halos must have been created or formed in situ."

The immediate precursor of Po-218 is Rn-222, which is a gas with a half-life of 3.8 days. Rn-222 might well decay in an airspace and not leave any damage in a rock crystal. If that happens, the daughter product, Po-218, could well stick to a rock surface, as it almost certainly would, not being a gas, and then create its own halo damage by subsequent decay. The absence of halos from the decay of the Rn-222 parent is far from convincing about whether or not the Po-218 was primordial or not. Plus there is also the problem of whether or not the halos alleged to be from Po-218 have been properly identified.

 

[Peter101]

BobRyan writes:"Imagine the Earth as a huge clump of gasses - how long does it take for them to consolidate - and for the crust to cool enough to create pressure and density so that Granite can form?

Polonium will let you have all of 5 minutes. Take as much of it as you like."
.............................................
Not true, Bob. Polonium halos have been created ever since the crust solidfied and are even being created today, while we write this. It must be so, because we know that Po-218 can easily be measured almost everywhere, in the air and in the rocks. So there is not as much uniqueness about Gentry's Polonium halos as he would have you believe. New Po-218 is constantly being produced from the U-238 decay chain, so there is no shortage of supply of this nuclide, even though it does have a short half life.

 

[BobRyan]

The "problem" is NOT the "supply" the "problem" is the distribution Po 218 is not supposed to outnumber Po 210 - and its half life is about 3 seconds. To "capture it" requires very special conditions and to Capture MORE 218 than 210 is literally impossible in the lab using normal cooling techniques for Granite.

Be that as it may - The Gospel is utterly compromised when the fall of man - and the work of the Creator is "denied" as the starting point.

The entire system of redemption and salvation is obliterated FROM the text.

By playing "cut and paste" with God's Word - our compromised Christian bretheren seek to compromise evilutionism's unworkable mythologies with Gods Word - an impossible marriage.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Meatros]

By playing "cut and paste" with God's Word - our compromised Christian bretheren seek to compromise evilutionism's unworkable mythologies with Gods Word - an impossible marriage.

Nice rhetoric. "Evilutionism". It's fairly common knowledge that the last resort of the desperate is to attack the person and not the argument.

Again you use compromised Christian brethern to verbally assualt those with a different view then you. If we don't agree with Bob then we are evil and going to hell. You think it's an impossible marriage, but the majority of Christians do not. You sir are in the minority of the faithful.
In my eyes YEC hurts the Gospel. Other's disagree with me and that's their right, however this (IMO) stubborn blind acceptance of what is overwhelmingly not a literal account is going to hamper (again, IMO) your ability to convert people.
You are making the issue of evolution more important than the issue of salvation.

 

[Meatros]

THE POSITION OF MAJOR CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS ON CREATION AND INERRANCY

Also on the same site I found this qoute:

"The fact is, that the process by which man came to be on the planet is a very important scientific problem, but is not a crucially important religious problem. Origins prove nothing in the realm of values." Kennedy, G., Ed. (1957). Evolution and Religion: The Conflict between Science and Theology in Modern America. Boston: D. C. Heath & Co.

 

[BobRyan]

Meatros --
Nice rhetoric. "Evilutionism". It's fairly common knowledge that the last resort of the desperate is to attack the person and not the argument.

EvilutionISM is a "system" not a "person".

Meatros --

Again you use compromised Christian brethern to verbally assualt those with a different view then you. If we don't agree with Bob then we are evil and going to hell. You think it's an impossible marriage, but the majority of Christians do not.

Wonderful!

The challenge of this thread was to take the DETAILS listed that SHOWED the compromise was NOT workable - that showed the compromise corrupts the Gospel itself - and DEAL with those [details] in a "compelling way" to make the case that you merely "assert" in your response instead of "showing" to be true.

Why not give it a try?

As it is - God has clearly made the PREMISE of the ENTIRE Gospel concept hinge upon the veracity of the account of the FALL of Adam.

Even godless - atheist - evolutionists ADMIT that the this attack upon the CORE concept undermines the Chritians thesis regarding the Gospel AND SO do YEC see the SAME point as "obvious" and "blatant". You attempt a compromise that BOTH Christian and atheist see clearly as a self-conflicted compromise unworkable in any form.

Bob

 

[Meatros]

EvilutionISM is a "system" not a "person".

Actually "evilutionism" is not a "system" or a "person". It's a made up concept by those who are afraid to actually debate the issues, instead they have to "demonize" the words used.

The challenge of this thread was to take the DETAILS listed that SHOWED the compromise was NOT workable - that showed the compromise corrupts the Gospel itself - and DEAL with those [details] in a "compelling way" to make the case that you merely "assert" in your response instead of "showing" to be true.

So your 'compelling' way is to ridicule those who think differently then you?

Even godless - atheist - evolutionists ADMIT that the this attack upon the CORE concept undermines the Chritians thesis regarding the Gospel AND SO do YEC see the SAME point as "obvious" and "blatant". You attempt a compromise that BOTH Christian and atheist see clearly as a self-conflicted compromise unworkable in any form.

Atheist is not the same as evolutionist, you don't know what you are talking about.

And it apparently doesn't bother the majority of Christians who do not have a problem with a non-literal Genesis. It seems to be that the people with the problem are the ones who demand a literal Genesis. After those people have seen the light they will join their Christian brethern and realize that to accept evolution is not to be an atheist. Despite what I bet you will now claim.

 

[Meatros]

BTW Bob, have you read the forum header?

Creation/evolution boards on the net have a habit of degenerating into insults and mockery. This not only stops discussions, but discourages many people from posting and asking questions. We are opening this forum for regular posting with the understanding that it will still be more heavily moderated than other forums as far as deleting insults and attacks. Any complaints about the moderation should be directed to the webmaster or an administrator and not posted on the forum.

 

[Meatros]

Also Bob, it seems as though your challenge was met in pages 6 and 7. I don't see the need for you to continue your mischaracterization of either evolution or other people's beliefs (which you seem to care very little about).

No offense, but from the very start of this thread you have come off as hostile. You've mischaracterized evolution, theistic evolution, and you have attempted to bully other posters through the use of demonizing rhetoric.

Think about it: Even if you make a good point, the people who you want to 'convert' are not going to be in the frame of mind to do so. What are you expecting to happen after you use this type of rhetoric?

 

[Helen]

I agree with you here, Meatros; it is the attitude more than the facts which attract people. Romans 2 reminds us that it is the kindness of God rather than anything else which draws people to repentance. One can disagree strongly and still be courteous and respectful about it.

I dislike the term 'evilution' as well. 'Evolution' simply means 'change.' In that sense of course evolution happens. My own live has evolved. In its more common use, 'evolution' generally implies change for the better when it is used non-scientifically. Saying to a daughter, "You've evolved from a tempermental teenager into a lovely young woman" would be an example.

Scientifically it still means change, and usually with a positive connotation. The change can be simple variation, which is what we see constantly, even in nuclear families, or it can be referring to the argued-about changes from a one-celled organism to a fern or elephant or mosquito. It is this last use of evolution which is so widely argued, and one which I and many creationists (of various stripes) feel has no evidence to support it outside of imagination and interpretation.

But none of them is evil. One is simply wrong

However, all that being said, 'evolutionism' is a correct term in the same way 'creationism' is. Both refer to the belief system which exists with or without facts -- the attitude, if you will, which says, "My mind is made up; don't bother me with the facts."

Hopefully, this post will bring the thread back on track?

 

[BobRyan]

Helen on Page 7 ---
You have a good point there, Bob. What starts as an 'isolated' criticism/rejection of something in Genesis ends up working its way through the Bible, creating doubt and dependence on man's intelligence instead of God's Word at every turn.

That is going far beyond simply being "mistaken". Destroying the force and effect of the Word of God (as was demonstrated on page 7) and setting up "MAN" as the judge of God - negates not only the Gospel - but all of scripture itself.

What greater "goal" what greater "result" could "evil" hope for? Not that those who fall for that "falsehood" are evil - but evil does exist on earth and the "fruit" of evolutionism is "no accident".

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here was the opening challenge --

But in fact - evolutionism strikes at the very heart of the Gospel. Huxley knew it and most evolutionists (and all creationists) know it.

There is no fall of mankind from a perfect sinless state.

There is no need to restore mankind back to that high and lofty state from which he fell.

The very concept of "the Savior" is void.

The NT arguments that Paul and Christ made BASED on the "DETAILS" of Gen 1-3 are "void".

The Arguments that God makes from His own Law - appealing to Gen 1-3 "DETAILS" are void.

And in the NT - voiding ONE part of the LAW - nullifies all of it according to James.

The house of cards falls flat.

There has STILL been no response to the DETAILS given in that challenge.

(Not even on Pages 6 and 7)

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Challenge from page 4 - ALSO without response from our Evolutionist bretheren.

Bob --

Evolutionism's mythology speculates:

When mankind stopped being an "animal" and learned the difference between Good and Evil - God was shocked and dissappointed. God cast mankind out of the perfect Garden of Eden and had to "REDEEM" mankind at the cost of His own Son - dying an atoning sacrifice for "fALLEN" man who "FELL all the way down from ANIMAL to MAN".


As stated before "EvolutionISM corrupts the Gospel".


quote: Bob identifies ANOTHER corruption of the Gospel brought to us by evolutionism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no need to restore mankind back to that high and lofty state from which he fell.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Galation
See above. Man, upon understanding good and evil, becomes like God in that respect, but being unable to be completely good, is only potentially able to have fellowship with Him.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So evolutionism continues to spin its myths:

Adam having "FALLEN from being a pure BEAST mankind must be SAVED for he has turned into a sentient being having a conscience and knowledge of GOOD vs Evil.

Now God must "save the beast" that has fallen into being monkey-brain-bashing man.

God must SAVE HIM. God must now RESCUE mankind since he has FALLEN from that blood thirsty brute beast that he once WAS.

So God REDEEMS mankind BACK via the substitutionary death of Christ --- so that ultimately man CAN be just a brute beast once again.

REDEEMED BACK by the sacrifice of Christ".

EvolutionISM - corrupts the gospel in layers.


quote: Bob emphasize the TRUE attack upon the Gospel that evolutionism sets up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The very concept of "the Savior" is void.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saving the BEAST that became a HUMAN -

REDEEMING the man-BEAST BACK.

RETURNING to that pristine perfect "paradise" via the infinite sacrifice of Christ - the BEAST is "restored" - "REDEEMED" - and ATONEMENT is made so that God and the beast can once again be AT-ONE as he was BEFORE - in the law of "tooth and claw" carnage.

What a tragic distortion of the Gospel is EvolutionISM.

The NT arguments that Paul and Christ made BASED on the "DETAILS" of Gen 1-3 are made "void" in evolutionism's mythologies.


"SIX DAYS you shall labor and do all your work and REST the seventh day.... FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and all that are in them and RESTED the seventh day".
Exodus 20:8-11.

God appeals EXPLICITLY to the DETAILS of Gen 1-2 in arguing FOR that commandment. His statement requires acceptance of HIS OWN summary of that event.

A summary that evolutionism can not swallow - even remotely. An Exodus 20 summary NOT contained in parable or allegory or poetic form.

Evoltionism - is denied.

Christ states that God made mankind MALE and FEMAIL - and gave them marriage - quoting the DETAILS of Gen 2.

Paul states that ADAM was created first AND THEN Eve. He adds that Eve was FIRST DECEIVED. DETAILS that evolutionism CAN NOT accept.

Paul DENIES that ADAM made FIRST - SINNED by virtue of the fact that HE WAS the FIRST sentient human capable of independant thought knowing good and evil. Paul claims that simply BEING human instead of beast - WAS NOT 'the FALL'.

The veracity of the "details" of the Genesis 1-3 account are "argued FOR" in the rest of scripture.

That challenge from page 4 ALSO remains unnanswered.

Surely someone will take it up.

Bob